Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 2, 2011 5:00am-5:30am PDT

5:00 am
that was pretty impressive. i do have a question. if you had an opportunity to talk to some of your friends from the other schools, would you try to convince them to go to the big picture school? >> yes, i would. i would tell my friends to come to that school because it is based on what you want to do and how you do it. >> i would tell my friends to come to the school because we can learn job skills, what job skills or we want to learn before we get a job, or internships. i am trying to go to be a chef. i am trying to cook after school. i would bring my friends to our school. big picture is a good school.
5:01 am
>> i would tell people to come, anybody. we also visited a school in oakland that is just like ours. when i went, people enjoyed it. when the had assemblies, everybody was into it, not that some people did not want to do it. everybody was getting up and doing activities. our school is like that too. everybody is involved. >> i was just wondering how big our classes. >> are you talking about students? a class is like 20, 10 students per class. it is like eight or 10. but we are still trying to grow.
5:02 am
that is why we are moving our school, so our school can build up and be big, like regular schools. commissioner murase: i just wanted to inform my colleagues and acknowledge the board of directors who are here. students, you are very fortunate that you have people who really want to ensure your success. you have your administrators, bankers, attorneys, who are all thinking very carefully about the future of the school. i think that is unique among students to have that kind of backing behind you. i want to acknowledge those board members that are here in the audience today. [applause] >> i just want to say thanks to everybody who supports our school. thank you. president mendoza: thank you.
5:03 am
i think it was important for everybody to hear more about your school. thank you for being here this evening. have a good rest of the year. thank you. [applause] next item is public comment on consent items. we have two speakers on this. as she is standing up, i want to acknowledge our former city attorney, who is personally involved in our principal center
5:04 am
schools. thank you for being here this evening. item f is public comment on consent items. the speakers i have art linda flack and dennis kelly. >> good evening, members of the board, superintendent garcia, ladies and gentlemen. i rise to speak about the item on page 72, a resolution that proposes to discuss the expenditure of over $15 million to provide services to special education students when no appropriate public education services are available to serve the individual needs of students with disabilities. but i rise to question whether we have made the best choices
5:05 am
for the money we spend. $15 million. please look at the list on page 72. many of the schools that you see on the list are in san francisco or the bay area. but there are several that are very far away. is that necessary? for example, number three is in chester county, pennsylvania. no. 10 is in wichita kansas -- wichita, kansas. no. 17 is in provo, utah. no. 23 is in ohio. and number 29, which is i think the same school as 30, is in devereaux, florida.
5:06 am
my question to you is they are very far away. are these the only places in the united states where these services can be provided? certainly, when we take into account that they are boarding schools, that there are transportation costs, one must question this. the union has urged san francisco unified school district to provide access to these services through the school district for many years. we hope that we can begin to reduce this huge outlay of money and provide these services to our students internally, within the san francisco unified school district. thank you. president mendoza: thank you. >> commissioners of the board of education, superintendent carlos
5:07 am
garcia in the pink shirt -- [laughter] i rise to speak to you about two items. they are on page 32, item 3k. the item there is remarkable and commendable because the school district, through the decision not to modernize one campus and to have the contractor hurry the work at another campus to save -- has saved $50,000. that goes back into the bond fund and can be used for other projects. when you see that, it makes you worry about what is being done with some of the other bond expenditures, such as the one across the street. the incredible work that is planned for the john your campus
5:08 am
-- john muir campus in order to create some administrative offices, when presumably, if you looked at, for instance, horace mann, you could move in bungalows and administrators could live in bungalows the same with the kids are. i also ask you to look at page 66, item k6, the employee assistance program. if you look not at the expenditure, not at the good intention of it, but how it was chosen, and not a single one of the people who are intended to participate in the program were involved in getting the programs available -- vetting the programs available or making the
5:09 am
selection of this program. that is not the best way to operate something like this. you want the people involved in it to participate in this election. thank you very much. president mendoza: thank you. item g is the consent calendar. commissioner wynns: i motion to pass the consent calendar. >> we have one correction to an item on page 95, item 114.26k20. the list was not attached, so i am going to read the list. the schools are longfellow and mission. the number of students at each site that will be served are 70. president mendoza: ok. >> 70 per site. president mendoza: any item
5:10 am
severed by the board or the superintendent before the discussion or the vote tonight? commissioner norton: k8 on page 70. commissioner fewer: same one. president mendoza: any others? thank you. roll-call vote will take place under section o. item eight is the superintendent proposal. this is an authorization to grant or deny the renewal petition for thomas edison charter academy. the reading of the resolution, please. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners.
5:11 am
i am the director of the division overseeing charter schools for the district. before i read the resolution into the record, i would request that board members hear a report of the budget and financial sections of the petition. as i explained before and sent communication to the board, because of the expedited nature, we will render a report. president mendoza: are other items in our pocket for this? >> just to note also in the stuff written factual findings -- staff-written factual
5:12 am
findings in the back of your pink package, starting on page 4, it contains all findings inclusive of the budget and financial section. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is nancy wamack. i am the director of financial policy for the district. i am going to walk through comments based on the matrix for tractor renewal that we go through when we look at renewal for a charter petition. ms. richards has summarized the comments i made in these findings. we will be saying the same thing, but in a different format. the first section of was asked to review was the financial audit section. while there was information about the audit that was completed in 2010, most of this
5:13 am
information was based upon completion of the prior year audit, rather than an indication of how the audit would be completed in the years of the petition for which we were something this renewal. the procedure for selecting and retaining an independent auditor was not included, nor were the qualifications of the independent auditor or the timeline for achieving exceptions. an appendix was added from the first submission of this document with a letter showing the scope of an audit for the 2010 audit, but the structure should include what the scope of the audit will be going forward. that is a concern i have with leaving that out of the document. again, the timing of the audit for 2010 is described on page 38 of the charter petition, but it does not say what the policy of the school will be regarding the timing of audits and audit
5:14 am
procedures, and addressing exceptions over the term of the charter, which is what is called for. moving forward to the actual documentation of the budget, it is not relevant to have a startup budget because this is an ongoing torture. there were planning assumptions included in the documentation was provided, including the numbers of students and staff, at least in some versions. let me move on down. it was difficult to tell what the budget for the school was. there is a template of budgets that looks several years into the future, but there is also a budget that was included that looks at the current school year as well as next year, which did
5:15 am
not always line up with the budget included in the multi- year worksheets. the work sheets included assumptions for teachers and other personnel. they have different numbers than the ones included on the other budget. the fiscal year 11-12 budget only included non-personnel expenditures. it was hard to discern which one would be the appropriate document to consider. in any case, the numbers on the assumptions worksheet assumed an average future salary of approximately $54,000. to give you a comparison, the average teacher salary for us is predicted to be about $62,500. so there is a question on our matrix about whether or not the market rates are in range. these do seem to be within range, but significantly lower. that could be because of experience level of the teachers
5:16 am
or the mix of folks they have at their sites. there was a teacher pay scale included. however, it was dated 2007 and eight. that was obviously well below market rates at this point. the costs included for health benefits did not equal the amount listed, per employee times the number of employees in the worksheet. it is unclear. the costs listed seem to be a reasonable rate per person, but that was not what was budgeted, based on the worksheet. it is unclear whether the assumption was wrong or the amount budgeted was wrong. the amount budgeted seemed to be significantly lower than what would be required for the assumptions that were listed. that was true for each of the years included in the multi-year budget. there are also paraprofessionals listed in the document at an
5:17 am
average salary significantly lower than our rates in that category. there was a total ftp -- fte listed. i am not sure if that is a mistake in the actual rate or an error there. but it looked like the rate was significantly lower than the norm. the budget does show a strong reserve for 2010-11, but it does not seem to be that all of the costs were included in the budget worksheets, as i mentioned, especially with health benefits. that is a concern i had about the multi-year budget. i would be glad to try to answer any questions you might have about the budget in general.
5:18 am
president mendoza: just to note for the board, i did include the white budget pages at the end of the pink package. only if nancy were to refer to any sections of the budget. the challenge was around dates and potential missed regulations. it might lead to more confusion in reference to that. the scope of your comments were what we focused on. >> i just gave that to you. you have had copies of that since the petition was already sent. president mendoza: are the clarifying questions before i invite the public to speak? commissioner fewer: i have one. i think i did not catch what you said about the ftes. i think you were saying the listed their per professional rate of pay at $26,000 and that
5:19 am
we are at 39. you mentioned something after that about the ftes. >> there were a number of positions listed with that right. it did have a specific number of full-time equivalents. my thought was that they may have listed not actual full-time equivalents. i could not be sure that was the actual total pay rate for that position. it did look like that is what it was. but because it was significantly lower than the market rate, i was open to the possibility that it could have been a head count rather than an fte. commissioner fewer: another clarifying question. the health care costs were not incorporated into this budget?
5:20 am
>> health-care costs are incorporated into this budget, but the template is such that you would need to multiplied the number of full-time equivalents times the rate in your assumptions. that is not the number that is included in this budget for benefits. there is a different number that is significantly lower. that is the concern i have in that category. president mendoza: any other questions? commissioner murase: i am reading in the audit report from the accountants located in fresno that as of june 10 it was unclear about their tax-exempt status. do we know if there were able to secure tax-exempt status? >> i do not know. commissioner murase: i believe they cited that in other sections of the petition.
5:21 am
>> we also have members of the petitioner group here to clarify that. president mendoza: if there are no other questions, i invite the public to come up and speak. michelle levy, andrew toomey, christine reed, shannon weber, marie wang, sean whitney, bonnie centino. you have 1.5 minutes each. >> just as we did in the last meeting, we did merge the budget report with the reading of the amended language of the resolution. if these comments are based on the general petition, i would have to read the amended resolution into the record prior to the comments, unless they are going to be speaking on the budget item only.
5:22 am
president mendoza: can i get a sense from those that are speaking? >> if you would give me a few minutes, i will do it as quickly as i can. it is in your pick packet. it starts on the third page. superintendent's recommendation regarding thomas edison charter academy. resolution -- to deny the renewal petition for thomas edison charterer academy. the state board of education is the charter authorizes for the thomas edison charterer academy, which is set to expire on june 15, 2011. pursuant to education code section 47605, section k three,
5:23 am
they submitted a petition for renewal that was denied by the district board of education based on stuff written and factual findings. pursuant to education -- to the education code, the petitioner is submitted on march 30 of 2011 to the district their rise to try to recall petition for the renewal of the charter school petition. the board of education held a public hearing on april 12, 2011, as required by law. the board of vacation show consider the level of public support for the charter school and has reviewed the renewal petition and all information received with respect to the renewal petition, including its appendixes. in reviewing the decision, the board of education shall be guided by the intent of the california legislature that truckers schools should become
5:24 am
an integral part of the california education system, and establishment of tractors schools should be encouraged. after analysis of the petition, district staff determined that the proposed petition contains deficiencies. district staff and legal counsel to review the petition and prepared written findings regarding the petition for renewal. the staff findings are attached as exhibit a. based on the analysis by the district staff, the superintendent has recommended denial of the petition. therefore, be it resolved that the board of education hereby adopt the findings and fact step -- set forward in the staff findings. the board of education finds that the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition, and the petition does not contain comprehensive decisions -- descriptions of
5:25 am
aspects of the program and operations, as required by the education code. the board of education hereby denies the charge to school petition. >> -- president mendoza: thank you. first speaker, please. >> it was my understanding we had two minutes each. president mendoza: you typically would, but we have had a lot of public comment tonight. >> can we have two minutes? president mendoza: let's see how you go. please state your name first. >> i am the executive director, thomas edison charterer academy. as you know, i entered in february of last year, retaining a relationship with the past administrator. i was amazed with the professionalism and abilities of the teacher and stuff. i found a school that had been functioning for close to 10
5:26 am
years, in collaboration with the community and the department of education. when i inquired about their lack of association with usfd, i was told there was a history. the board recognized the opportunity to strengthen education in the city of san francisco by joining together. we have attempted to show our good faith. we have expressed in writing and in person the desire to be part of sfusd, but we have been denied. we went to the state, and were told to wait for a response from their legal division. we waited and were told we should resubmit this month. based on that directive and the understanding that this needed to be exactly what was expected, we went back to our charter. the updated every section we had been told was deficient, and
5:27 am
reduced the charge of three other approve a charter schools of preferences. two were provided by the schools themselves. one was provided by ms. richards. this was given for review. again we have been denied. we were informed of this approximately five hours ago. we are here tonight in part to address the denial, since we were not afforded the question and answer sessions that are a part of the process. we realize you had a committee look at this charter and to view the recommendation. we hope you will look at it yourselves, because we know it is complete. other traders school administrators have looked at our charter and have agreed it represents and even if but -- even exceeds their approved charter. our 10 year history of functioning, our test scores, and everything else you will hear about tonight proves we are a highly successful school and would be a tremendous asset to your district. thank you.
5:28 am
>> i am a first grade teacher at edison charter academy. i have a letter from a parent to read. "i am the mother of two third grade students. date and my family are happy to be part of such a wonderful school. we like the way classes have been designed with the professional, compassionate staff that gives their all to the students. they create tools to make them better students. our school covers the academic and creative part of the students with the arts program. i believe this combination creates a good balance and will help them to be more eager to learn and to have better discipline. i love the way the staff interact with students and parents, making this open communication for all. the parent community has been working hard to help create additional income.
5:29 am
the hard work brings this community together. i would love if everyone would see how great the school is and come see for yourself that our kids are wonderful." thank you for your time. >> i am from the board. i am the finance minister, of edison charter academy. after reading the staff findings and recommendation, i have to respect to the say that i do not agree with the recommendations at all. i was regional controller for edison learning for five years. i provided assistance and services related to financial planning and budgeting to all the california and hawaii charterers schools. i taught budgeting courses in nba programs. -- mba programs. i do not agree there was a lack of budgetary assistance